If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I can't think of any involved management sims that are also involved strategic wargames.

The reason for this, I suspect, is that for the difficulty it would take to get an economy going in order to field an army, the likelihood of achieving a balanced battle is slim to none and the frustration of watching your hours and hours of work destroyed after a failed skirmish - in an inevitable cascade failure that would likely take another few hours to fully play through - would be horrible.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

I can't think of any involved management sims that are also involved strategic wargames.

The reason for this, I suspect, is that for the difficulty it would take to get an economy going in order to field an army, the likelihood of achieving a balanced battle is slim to none and the frustration of watching your hours and hours of work destroyed after a failed skirmish - in an inevitable cascade failure that would likely take another few hours to fully play through - would be horrible.

I generally disagree with Nalano but he is right here. Yet another example of why multiplayer ruins creativity.

I never suggested stacked simulations. It could be as arcade as you like. I just mean that say in settlers you plump down wood cutters, wouldn't it be good if the rpg vs rts genre wasn't purely combat focused.

I never suggested stacked simulations. It could be as arcade as you like. I just mean that say in settlers you plump down wood cutters, wouldn't it be good if the rpg vs rts genre wasn't purely combat focused.

I never suggested stacked simulations. It could be as arcade as you like. I just mean that say in settlers you plump down wood cutters, wouldn't it be good if the rpg vs rts genre wasn't purely combat focused.

Settlers combat works purely on an economic model heavily supported by extremely restrictive maps and built-in rules about noncombatants because anybody worth their salt would immediately use a tiny raiding force to hamstring your economy rather than meet you head-on.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Settlers combat works purely on an economic model heavily supported by extremely restrictive maps and built-in rules about noncombatants because anybody worth their salt would immediately use a tiny raiding force to hamstring your economy rather than meet you head-on.

Remember I'm not suggesting symmetrical play, one guy with a town, the other with a rogue/knight, or one with a Kingdom, the other a dragon.

Citizen Kabuto did a little of this too. 2 sides build bases the Kabuto grows and has babies who follow him about.

Idea came up while playing Tropico 3 back to back with Just Cause 2. It dawned on me I was playing 2 orphaned halves of an awesome game.

One player is building a town/base/dungeon the other is desperately seeking their death.

Dungeon Keeper 2 had elements of this, but can anyone suggest any others?

I'm afraid these games are notoriously hard to find. Asymetric boardgames are fairly easy to find, but games ? Forget it ! RTS fans have a knee-jerk reaction to anything less symmetric than a tennis court.

Natural Selection 2 partially fits. Most players are grunts with FPP view, one or more have topdown view and manage economy and radar.

I'm not generally fond of generalities of most any sort. DOTA is an enormously creative game, bursting with interesting mechanics, and leaving scope for players and teams to come up with some very imaginative strategies.

I'm not generally fond of generalities of most any sort. DOTA is an enormously creative game, bursting with interesting mechanics, and leaving scope for players and teams to come up with some very imaginative strategies.

Sounds like the perfect idea would be throwing a Total War game* and Dynasty Warriors (so we're dealing with 1vs1000) into a blender together. I see it either as a game where you build an empire and have some hero units who you control in fights in a giant clusterfuck, Viking: BfA way, or you have a multiplayer game where one player starts off with the big, eeeevil empire all built and the other plays a plucky hero trying to bring it down. The empire player has to try to hold the hero off or defeat them through laying strategic traps, turning the commoners against them, killing their friends/helpers, infiltrating the heros party etc; while the hero player is on more of an RPG quest - levelling up, recruiting folk, inspiring loyalty and getting more powerful through liberating territories. You could even include a gameplay switch where the roles are changed once the hero player has >50% of the territory.

Impossible dreams though.

*King Arthur is also a contender, as that has a Hero system in place. Think: Red Cliff - the John Woo movie.

I'm not generally fond of generalities of most any sort. DOTA is an enormously creative game, bursting with interesting mechanics, and leaving scope for players and teams to come up with some very imaginative strategies.

In the sense that making life difficult for the designers in charge of balancing the game is a creative endeavor.

If that's the case, then forum trolling should warrant a federal arts grant.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen